Redefine marriage? Include polygamy, incest

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey is warning lawmakers in the United Kingdom – just an American judge warned years ago – that a redefinition of “marriage” to include same-sex duos would lead to other less-desired results, such as polygamy and incest.

The report said Carey cited under the redefinition that lawmakers are considering there would be no reason to exclude two sisters living together who want to be married and multiple-partner arrangements such as polygamy would have to be supported.

Carey, one of the most prominent campaigners against same-sex “marriage” since Cameron announced his plans for it two years ago, was echoing the comments from a California Supreme Court judge who issued a similar warning when that court created same-sex “marriage” for that state several years ago.

That creation later was struck down by voters, who adopted a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman – only.

However, homosexuals appealed to a homosexual judge, who struck down the constitution amendment, and the case now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. judge who issued the warning was Justice Marvin Baxter of the California Supreme Court.

He dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex “marriage” for a short time in the state, and said the consequences of the action were not thought out.

He wrote, “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.

“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”

His warning?

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

His comments largely were ignored by the media, other courts, and politicians. But now comes Carey with nearly the same warning.

Carey said the UK proposal overturns the understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman that has been around since the dawn of Christianity.

“A reason why we should be worried by the redefining of marriage is the unintended consequences of such a step,” he said.

“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he continued. “If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.”

He said the concept that marriage is for those who care deeply for each and want to spend their lives together is “a wholly inadequate understanding of marriage.”

“Those of us accused of being on the wrong side of history can only plead with the government to respect our concern that extending marriage to same-sex couples is not only unwise, but also sets a dangerous precedent,” he said.

The Mail reported his comments were released through a publication from Civitas, an activist organization there.

While votes are approaching on the issue in the UK, in the United States, a pair of coming Supreme Court rulings will reveal whether the nation will maintain marriage as the institution that binds society as it has for millennia, or whether it will slouch down the path to an anything-goes “marriage.”

Pending are decisions on the Proposition 8 dispute from California, where a homosexual judge, Vaughn Walker, ordered that the state must allow same-sex “marriage” in a ruling that would benefit him, too, and one on the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

President Barack Obama has used a form of “nullification” on DOMA, which has been federal law for decades. It simply says that for federal purposes, only a man and a woman are involved in marriage.

However, Obama, and his attorney general, Eric Holder, said they were not going to enforce it and they were not going to defend it as their oaths of office require.

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, warned that that itself is a major threat.

By striking DOMA, he said, “It would set the precedent that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he does not.”

That, he said, would make a president an “autocratic dictator” by default, as he no longer would be bound by his oath of office to enforce all laws. The possibilities? If a president didn’t like the tax code, he simply could order federal agents not to enforce it.

Staver also warned a governmental endorsement of such alternative sexual lifestyles would create unsolvable clashes between those who want to pursue those lifestyles and the religion rights of the rest of society.

“We saw what happened in Massachusetts, and it’s just one of many, many examples of where same-sex marriage and same-sex unions come into play. Catholic charities have had to get out of the adoption ministry because they’re not going to violate their religious beliefs and place children in homes with same-sex couples. You see that with people who run bed and breakfasts, wedding photographers, cake decorators and it goes on and on and on, where you’re going to have to choose between your profession or same-sex agendas,” he said.

“Then you look at the public schools. Parental rights will be undermined. Children as young as kindergarten will be forced to have information fed to them about, not just tolerance and alternative families which is bad enough with regards to re-definition of the family, but that same-sex, aberrant sexual behavior is normative, good and healthy. That’s the kind of thing that you’re going to see in the public schools, and we’re seeing it already in some of these states like Massachusetts that have adopted same-sex marriage,” Staver said.

“This would be on a nationwide basis. It would be catastrophic. I think it would ultimately be the beginning of the end of the United States of America as we know it.”

In California it was Vaughn Walker who was the judge who heard the Prop 8 case. Critics noted that in additional to his personal interest in the case:

“Before the trial even began, the 9th Circuit issued an extraordinary write of mandamus to overturn Chief Judge Walker’s order requiring proponents to turn over confidential internal communications…”

“Also before the trial … the Supreme Court of the United States issued an emergency stay … enjoining Chief Judge Walker from video recording and disseminating the trial proceedings…”

“Walker’s decision recognizing a right under the Federal Constitution for same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages conflicts with the judgment of every state and federal appellate court to consider the validity of the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage. …”

Walker peremptorily held that gays and lesbians are a suspect class … even though all 11 Circuit Courts of Appeals … have repeatedly and squarely held to the contrary.”

“Walker refused to stay his judgment pending appeal. As a result, the 9th Circuit was forced to issue such a stay.”

In his ruling advancing same-sex “marriage” Walker also arrived at the following highly controversial legal findings:

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

“Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”

“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”